Steve .. I can't see that there is any threat to existing faith schools. I'd like to see extra funding for alternatives in places where the the majority of schools are faith schools; such as Northern Ireland, and parts of Scotland for example; and where faith schooling re-inforces intolerance and sectarianism.

I am determinedly against the further expansion of faith schools across the country. I think that reasoning that it will lead to an increase in standards is bogus. As all faiths will have to be treated equally, then this will lead to an expansion in the number of Islamic schools in areas like the North-West where you come from for example - and do nothing for integration and the development of a 'British Identity'.

The American rejection of ID in schools doesn't come from an analysis of good or bad science as such - it comes from the realisation that true religious freedom requires that the state stays out of such matters. The justification at the moment for the expansion of faith schools is that they 'perform better' than ordinary schools. By extension of this reasoning then if 'faith schools' of a particular type start performing better than others (and this is the case of course) - the logically these schools should be favoured and expanded - whilst 'failing ones' are closed down.

However it is slso the case that the faith-based school system is at least partly responsible for perpetuating the differences between two tribes. There are only 58 schools where you can be taught with children of other beliefs - the very first one opened in 1981.

There is now a 'Nortern Ireland Council for Integrated Education'. On i't website you can access independant research that shows that Children that attend 'Integrated' schools are more likely to occupy the middle ground in politics:

Quote

First, at a time of ongoing sectarianism and frustrated politics, where many people seem programmed into the view that identity is something which we are receive at birth and is fixed for life, rather like our DNA. This research confirms that young people who attend an integrated school are willing to challenge such stereotypes by being "more likely to reject traditional identities and allegiances than those who attended a segregated one". They are able to explore the whole meaning of identity, because integrated schools provide safe spaces within which they are supported and encouraged to challenge sectarian stereotypes and explore alternative models of citizenship.

Second, those findings of the wider study which were based upon a large sample of the adult population (Life and Times survey) suggest that "the positive effects of integrated schooling extend into later life". There is no coincidence in the fact that the title of the research links integrated schooling with political progress, as the report goes on to suggest that an integrated education nurtures the development of individuals who "have the potential to create a new common ground in N Ireland politics".

This willingness to engage with the other takes place on both sides of the so called "political divide" as evidenced by the report´s findings that "Protestants who experience a formally integrated education occupy the middle ground in N Ireland politics" while "in general Catholics who attended either a formally or informally integrated school were more likely than their segregated counterparts to abandon their traditional territorial allegiances".

I can't speak from experience like yourself - but don't you think that children in Northern Ireland could have an equally good or even better education if they weren't seperated according to the faith of their parents at age 5?

However it is slso the case that the faith-based school system is at least partly responsible for perpetuating the differences between two tribes. There are only 58 schools where you can be taught with children of other beliefs - the very first one opened in 1981.

There is now a 'Nortern Ireland Council for Integrated Education'. On i't website you can access independant research that shows that Children that attend 'Integrated' schools are more likely to occupy the middle ground in politics:

Quote

First, at a time of ongoing sectarianism and frustrated politics, where many people seem programmed into the view that identity is something which we are receive at birth and is fixed for life, rather like our DNA. This research confirms that young people who attend an integrated school are willing to challenge such stereotypes by being "more likely to reject traditional identities and allegiances than those who attended a segregated one". They are able to explore the whole meaning of identity, because integrated schools provide safe spaces within which they are supported and encouraged to challenge sectarian stereotypes and explore alternative models of citizenship.

Second, those findings of the wider study which were based upon a large sample of the adult population (Life and Times survey) suggest that "the positive effects of integrated schooling extend into later life". There is no coincidence in the fact that the title of the research links integrated schooling with political progress, as the report goes on to suggest that an integrated education nurtures the development of individuals who "have the potential to create a new common ground in N Ireland politics".

This willingness to engage with the other takes place on both sides of the so called "political divide" as evidenced by the report´s findings that "Protestants who experience a formally integrated education occupy the middle ground in N Ireland politics" while "in general Catholics who attended either a formally or informally integrated school were more likely than their segregated counterparts to abandon their traditional territorial allegiances".

I can't speak from experience like yourself - but don't you think that children in Northern Ireland could have an equally good or even better education if they weren't seperated according to the faith of their parents at age 5?

I would not doubt that. What background do you expect those children to have though? I suspect those children are all from non-bigotted families. Anyway, I have no real desire to defend religious segregation (and especially in NI).

My original point on faith schools was that I would not like to see them banned.

My argument against banning faith schools is:1. Some of the best schools in the UK are faith based.2. Banning could cause school closures.3. It will most likely creat a lot of unnecesary indignation from parents.

guthrie,I did not read a single paragraph in your post that I would dissagree with.

State schools seem to be getting increasingly handicapped by government interference. It would seem very difficult for a teacher/head to deal with disruptive pupils now. Individual "rights" have been promoted in a ridiculous way. Problem students seem to have more rights than those that wish to study.

Why should it be so difficult to exclude a student who constantly disrupts a class of 30+?

A good question. I personally dont use ideas like "rights" very often. The problem when talking about rights is one of balance as usual, and also as usual, any group of people who are not properly overseen with appropriate checks and balances frequently get it wrong.

From my point of view, it is a combination of:

1) Nowhere else to put disruptive child.2) Need to meet gvt targets, which whilst by themselves seem quite good, overall have a deleterious effect.3) Their parents will possibly kick up a fuss, and you probably have a rought idea how many parents believe their little angels can do no wrong. 4) Poor headteachering.

I'm working in a voluntary capacity with eight year -olds in a primary school.

It's in a difficult area - and some of these kids have truly lousy parents. These kids tend to be hard work - but why should they be punished twice for something that they can do nothing about?

Faith schools drop kids like this at the drop of a hat - a nice simple way to push up their score compared to other schools (I believe there was a report published just today that backs this up ah.. found it..Kelly suppresses report).Other schools then have to take them in. I think that state school should do their best by all nations children - even if it it means working harder on the ones that are showing problems.

Otherwise by the time these kids get to be teenagers, they're even worse trouble; and after that - unemployment crime, drugs - it would have been cheaper to give the kids a decent schooling and some opportunities in the first place.I've worked with enough unemployed illiterate and inumerate teenagers to know what sink schools are expected to turn out. Blair wants to let them drop even further behind to appease the middle classes.

Oh .. and the Cat Stevens info...

Quote

Call for madrassas inside state schools, TES, 14/10/05Muslim experts suggest ways to tackle alienation behind London bombingsMadrassas, the religious schools linked to mosques, should have the option of moving to the site of their local state schools, an education taskforce set up by Tony Blair following the London bombings has said.The group of Muslim academics and educationists, which includes Yusuf Islam, formally pop star Cat Stevens, handed in its report to Charles Clarke, Home Secretary, last week.Proposals included the creation of a Muslim educational research centre, a national ethnic achievement programme and shaking up the UK's Islamic schools or madrassas...

<i>I canâ€™t seem to find any of this. Why should it be taught with zero support? Or am I just missing the support? Please note, by the by, that Iâ€™m not asking for a refutation of evolution.</i>

No matter, those who go as craaazy about "evolution" as the writers here seem to would also be against refutation of any <i>type</i> being taught anyway. And how would one set about refuting an amorphous term that can mean anything from a specific and observed change in the size of the beaks of birds to all "change" that has ever taken place in the Cosmos? You may as well stick your hand in a mud puddle and claim to have refuted the water that flows around it. Interesting how scientific "evolution" is though, given that the term covers so much hypothetical goo that can never be refuted and so many hypotheses that were never refined and defined into sound theories to be tested in the first place. How do you refute something that cannot rise to the level of being objectively wrong in the first place?

If you want to discuss the urge to censor, we'd love to hear why the ID blog Uncommon Descent banned more people last Friday (26 that we know of) than Panda's Thumb and After the Bar Closes, combined, has banned in nearly 2 years of operation (11).

<blockquote>Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha has long criticized the Legislature for allowing prayers to be offered on the floor and makes a point of not being present when the morning prayers are given.

He stormed onto the floor after Swartley was done and in a raised voice called the pastorâ€™s comments outrageous and out of line.

â€śThe day has been poisoned for me,â€ť said Chambers, who added that he had never been as enraged and furious in the Legislature, and that â€śdonkeysâ€ť such as Swartley should be yanked from the podium in the future.</blockquote>

It is interesting to contrast the lack of civility, immediate attempts at censorship of speech and the tendency to be ruled by their own feelings that those with the urge to merge tend to as compared to the Founders. E.g.<blockquote>On Thursday, June 28, 1787, Benjamin Franklin delivered a powerful speech to the Constitutional Convention, which was embroiled in a bitter debate over how each state was to be represented in the new government. [...] Being the senior member of the convention at 81 years of age, he commanded the respect of all present, and, as recorded in James Madison's detailed records, he rose to speak in this moment of crisis:Mr. President:The small progress we have made after four or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each otherâ€”our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding.

We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding?

In the beginning of the Contest with C. Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor.To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truthâ€”that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that â€śexcept the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.â€ť I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel:We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages.

And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to moveâ€”that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.</blockquote>(America's God and CountryBy William J. Federer :246-249)

It's interesting to compare that to the tendencies of those stupid and ignorant enough to believe in the various Darwinian creation myths that have been advanced over time. E.g., in the eugenics movement those who opposed "science" were labelled as "ape clergy" and so on. What Darwinists seem to mean when they call other people animals who have no right to speak and should be "should be yanked from the podium" is rather queer, given that they're typically the same mental retards that support "animal rights." E.g. Richard Dawkins.

Note the talk of "poison," notice how those with the urge to merge speak in language based on immanence that tends to bleed into a medicalized cure. â€śThe day has been poisoned for me,â€ť said Chambers.

So he gives himself away, yet writers on the Panda's Thumb apparently like him. No surpise, as they are like him.

How about looking into positive arguments for your position instead of passively waiting for things to attack? Could it be because that might lead to actual learning--obviously going against some sort of IDist creed. Instead of lurking around "pro-evolution websites" looking for any scrap of information you can find, perhaps you should be doing some research to advance your cause.

What a grouchy, unpleasant fellow you are, mynym! How perfectly you exemplify EVERYTHING not only wrong, but unpleasant, about creationists (under whatever cover name).

And, as a bonus, you exemplify everything that is right about this group of disagreeable, cowardly "Homo Merkin": nothing.

What a trial it gets to be, having to scroll past all these lonesome, grumpy jerks on this thread! Of course, the only "positive" and non-mental-masturbatory goal of such vain folk as mynym, DH, CC, and Larry (how long the list of utterly vacuous, twisted trolls now is!) is to make reading PT so unpleasant as to drive people away from the site.

Then please adhere to your own words, since it seems that you have nothing to say about the "mountains of evidence" for Darwinism anyway.

<i>Wow, mynym, your posts get less coherent every day. I guess their total lack of any coherent content or structure makes them â€śirefutable,â€ť eh?</i>

Only in your own imagination...

<i>You need some lessons in clear writing from the LaRouchies and flat-earthers. Either that, or more medsâ€¦</i>

I suspect that you would drug people if you could if that was the way the Herd was running these days given the totalitarianism typical to those grounded in scientism and the way that they seek physical solutions to metaphysical problems.

Too bad you live in America, huh? A nation founded on and defined by ideas rather than a physical people, who would have <i>thought</i> it...

<i>What a grouchy, unpleasant fellow you are, mynym! How perfectly you exemplify EVERYTHING not only wrong, but unpleasant, about creationists (under whatever cover name).</i>

If those with the urge to merge found my writing pleasant just as they seem to like the uncivilized and censorious politician above then I would be concerned that I was not making enough separations, discriminations and that <i>type</i> of thing. It's good to see that is not the case. Of course you didn't really say anything about the perversion of separation of church and state from the intentions of Founders like Franklin that leads into absurd situations like some federal judge trying to define "religion" and "science" for everyone, but that's to be expected.

Dude, if you think we're that easily insulted, you're probably still riding the little bike with the training wheels. Hint: the metal pipes that look like cow horns are to help you steer. Woah! Watch out for that tree!

Eesh, mynym, that must have really hurt!

<i>(And for those who call us heartless, I sincerely hope the tree is okay...)</i>

Dude, if you think we're that easily insulted, you're probably still riding the little bike with the training wheels. Hint: the metal pipes that look like cow horns are to help you steer. Woah! Watch out for that tree!

Eesh, mynym, that must have really hurt!

<i>(And for those who call us heartless, I sincerely hope the tree is okay...)</i>

The couple in the Genesis named Adam and Eve are not the first humans and the Bible does not even imply that they are.

I have never read the original Hebrew Bible. Now I see how little I really knew about how wrong the modern Christian versions were. Here I thought that the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first humans.

The couple in the Genesis named Adam and Eve are not the first humans and the Bible does not even imply that they are. They are noteworthy because God chooses to overtly interact with them and have a record of those interactions recorded for posterity in the Bible. There also are other theological interpretations we need not get into here. But this happens many other times in the Bible. For example, God chooses, seemingly out of the blue, to interact with Abraham, and no explicit reason is provided to justify this choice.

Can you give us your translations carol? Genesis 19:5-8 and Deuteronomy 33:11You see, those verses are among a few from the old testament that seem like they would point to a provincial god, one that does, in fact contradict scientific findings. I can explain further but I might just have a bad translation so I am waiting for a good one first.

Wow, an entire religion founded on incorrect data. Like cloning human stem cells.

I am amazed how Carol's logic allows her to defend a book that portrays women in the context that it does.Women are shown to be 2nd class,valued less than a man, and in Gods eyes women are the possessions of men,in fact women and girls don't really count as persons in "The Lords Eyes" Women are the guilty party in all errors, men are but innocent victims.There are hundreds of examples of this in the bible and I'm sure Carol will have a apologetic answer for all of them. Oh yes I can quote book and verse to most of them.

To the Admins, WHY WAS MY POST DELETED? There are plenty of other posts on this page regarding the Bible, but mine gets deleted? Why the selective deletions? Please don't turn this site into Uncommon Descent.

Okay, so I see my post was moved to the bathroom wall. Well, I wanted to tell Carol that Chapter 2 of Genesis contradicts Chapter 1 (Adam as first human vs. previous humans, respectively). But I really don't feel like getting too much into it. I'm no expert on the subject.

<quote>I am trying not to wander too far off topic here.</quote>We might, of course, note that this thread is *supposed* to be about the Hindu effort to teach their doctrine as science. Carol's bible-babble is irrelevant. I guess Landa doesn't have the One True Version of Hindu texts, so Carol feels the need to change the subject to a book she CAN sell.